Why is Work Considered a Scalar Quantity Despite Having Direction?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter abrowaqas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reason Scalar Work
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of work as a scalar quantity in physics, despite its association with directional forces and displacements. Participants explore the definitions and implications of work, energy, and their respective scalar and vector characteristics, touching on theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that work is defined as the dot product of force and displacement, which inherently results in a scalar quantity.
  • Others question the implications of work being scalar, particularly in relation to the direction of force and displacement, and whether work is done in the direction of force or displacement.
  • One participant suggests that work does not depend on direction, as machines like pulleys can change the direction of applied force without affecting the work done.
  • Concerns are raised about the relationship between work and energy, with some arguing that energy, being a scalar, cannot have direction, which leads to questions about conservation principles.
  • Another viewpoint highlights that energy is related to a system's configuration and can exist in multiple forms without a directional component.
  • Some participants introduce the concept of momentum as a vector quantity, contrasting it with energy and work.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of work and energy, with no consensus reached on whether the directional aspects of force and displacement affect the scalar nature of work. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these definitions and their relationship to conservation laws.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific examples, such as circular and rectilinear motion, to illustrate their points, indicating that the discussion may be limited by the contexts chosen for examples. The relationship between work, energy, and direction is not fully resolved, leaving open questions about definitions and interpretations.

abrowaqas
Messages
113
Reaction score
0
We know that work is the dot product between force and displacement .. so dot product always gives scalar (horizontal projection etc) hence work is a scalar quantity?

I want the reason behind it...

we always do work in specific direction..

suppose a man in appliying force at the angle of 30 in the horizontal distance to cover displacement of 3m... hence he is doing work in the direction of displacement..

clearly stated from this example that work always has direction.. then

why it is scalar quantity ? in its actual sense..
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Work is a difference of energies. It might be tempting to say that kinetic energy is a vector, but it would make no sense for potential, heat and etc.
 


abrowaqas said:
we always do work in specific direction..

suppose a man in appliying force at the angle of 30 in the horizontal distance to cover displacement of 3m... hence he is doing work in the direction of displacement..
Is he doing work in the direction of the displacement or in the direction of the force? Why?

What about a pulley? Do pulleys violate the conservation of energy by changing direction? How can you avoid having a pulley change the direction of work in your proposal?
 


The work doesn't depend on the direction. You can always change the direction of the applied force using machines like pulleys and such. It doesn't matter which way you pull.
 


DaleSpam..
i got the point of your questions. but u quote examples both are related to the circular motion ...
what about the work in the rectilinear motion ?
 


Huh? Neither of my questions were about circular motion.
 


It just doesn't make sense given its definition, its a dot product which is F1x1 + F2x2, that's a scalar; its units are Joules, how can an energy have a direction? Would two energies with equal magnitude and opposite direction sum to zero in this world? Doesn't that violate conservation? How do you pick what direction work points in? Is it parallel to F or x? What if you know the work done by a system is equal to heat lost? Is heat a vector as well?

It shouldn't need explaining, it's defined that way. But the above should convince you that alternate definitions lead to big problems.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Sundayemere


Thanks mLkey W.
You gave good explanation . I got it ..
 


Note that besides kinetic energy, we have another motion-related quantity which is a vector, namely momentum. Just as an object's kinetic energy changes because of the net work done on it, so does the object's momentum change because of the net impulse acting on it (force x time in the simplest case). And impulse is a vector, like momentum is.
 
  • #10


Recall that work is defined as a discrete change in energy, so you're question really boils down to "why is energy a scalar quantity." The answer to that question is simple. Energy is all about a physical system's positional configuration with relation to the forces in play, like for example the location of an object in a gravitational field. A physical system can have many different configurations which all share the same energy value. To continue with the example, an object at a distance ##d## from a gravitational source has some energy value. Yet, there are lots of ways to place an object at a distance of ##d## from said source. Namely, you can place it anywhere on a sphere of radius ##d## (with the source in the center). Naturally this sort of configuration-energy will be a scalar with no direction. If that physical system converts the positional energy into motion (kinetic) energy, the the motion energy must be scalar by inheritance.
 
  • #11


If you want to give energy a "direction", then the sum of that energy in a system is simply the "gross kinetic energy" of that system. Potential energy in that sense is simply energy not having a net direction. This can be of an unknown arbitrary amount (at least E=mc^2). Of course, whether energy has a net direction or not is relative to an observer, so what looks like potential energy in one frame looks like kinetic energy in another frame.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
11K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K